How OAG is Countering Hate

At OAG, we believe that challenging biased attitudes and behaviors in ourselves, others, our institutions, and our systems, can help to interrupt bias before it escalates and stop discrimination, hate, and bias-motivated violence from flourishing. For that reason, OAG’s strategy to address hate focuses on awareness, prevention, and survivor support.

In 2021, I had the great honor as serving as the president of the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) and chose countering hate as the theme for my presidential initiative. Through the presidential initiative, The People v. Hate: Standing Up for Humanity, we embarked on a year-long inquiry into hate.

Each quarter built upon different themes of hate—including understanding it, preventing it, dismantling its legacy, and repairing its harm. My presidential term may be over — but my work against hate will continue until my last breath.

Read about my year-long trial against hate on Medium and email PeopleVHate@dc.gov for specific questions about our work to counter hate.

2021 NAAG Presidential Overview:

  • December 6, 2020 – Launch Video: The People v. Hate – Standing Up for Humanity (NAAG, Video)
  • December 6, 2020 – District of Columbia Attorney General Karl A. Racine 2021 Presidential Initiative Remarks (NAAG, Video)

Local and National Legal, Legislative, and Advocacy Efforts to Address Hate:

WIN: Responding to the Violent Attack on the U.S. Capitol

  • December 17, 2021 – Announcing Lawsuit Against January 6 Insurrectionists (Text)
  • December 14, 2021 – AG Racine Files Lawsuit to Hold January 6 Insurrectionists Accountable & Stand Up for Harmed District Law Enforcement Officers (Text)
  • March 21, 2021 – Statement for the Record: Hearing on State and Local Responses to Domestic Terrorism: Attack on the US Capitol and Beyond (Statement)
  • January 12, 2021 – AG Racine Leads Bipartisan Coalition of 50 Attorneys General Condemning Violent Attack on U.S. Capitol (Letter)

WIN: Passage of the Jabara-Heyer NO HATE Act

  • May 18, 2021 – Congress Passes the Jabara-Heyer NO HATE Act (Statement)
  • April 13, 2021 – Bipartisan Coalition of 35 AGs Calling on Congress to Pass the Jabara-Heyer NO HATE Act (Letter)

WIN: Responding to Growing Presence of Hate & Disinformation Online

  • December 6, 2021 - AG Racine Files Brief Supporting Effort to Hold Facebook Accountable For Falsely Claiming to Remove Hate Speech From Its Platform (Text
  • January 16, 2021 – Facebook Halts Weapon Accessory Ads (Post)
  • January 15, 2021 – AG Racine Urges Facebook to Halt Weapon Accessory Advertisements Amid Heightened Threats Ahead of Inauguration (Letter)
  • August 5, 2020  AG Racine Leads 20-State Coalition Urging Facebook to Aggressively Combat the Spread of Hate and Disinformation Online (Letter)

WIN: Passage of Legislation to Enforce the District’s Hate Crimes

  • December 15, 2020 – AG Racine’s Statement on Council’s Passes of Civil Rights Legislation (Statement)
  • March 3, 2020 – OAG’s Testimony on Hate Crime Civil Enforcement Clarification Amendment Act of 2019 (Text)
  • February 19, 2020 – OAG’s Testimony on Attorney General Civil Rights Enforcement Clarification Amendment Act of 2019 (Text)
  • October 23, 2019 – OAG’s Testimony on Hate Crimes in the District of Columbia and the Failure to Prosecute by the United States Attorney’s Office (Text)

Local and National Programs to Address Hate:

ACTION: Understanding the State of Hate in America and its Legacy

ACTION: Supporting Survivors and Communities Impacted by Hate

  • September 30, 2021 – Standing Up for Our Common Humanity: Seeking Justice for Victims and Survivors (NAAG, Video)
  • September 30, 2021 – Law Enforcement Working Together on Solutions to Stop Hate (NAAG, Video)
  • September 30, 2021 – Harnessing the Power of Accountability and Restorative Justice (NAAG, Video)
  • September 30, 2021 – Uniting with Community Partners on Effective Ways to Address Hate (NAAG, Video)
  • July 20, 2021 – Promising Practice in State Efforts to Combat Hate (NAAG, Video)
  • May 18, 2021 - State and Local Responses to Rising Hate (AGA, Video)
  • May 4, 2021 – A Community United: A National Convening Against Anti-AAPI Hate (AGA, Video)
  • April 14, 2021 – Spring Forum: The Rise of Hate and Its Deadly Consequences (NAAG, Video)
  • December 18, 2020 – Unifying in the Aftermath of Hate with DC’s Metropolitan AME Church Pastor, William H. Reverend Lamar IV (Video)

ACTION: Responding to Rising Hate Crimes Against the AAPI Community

  • May 4, 2021 – A Community United: A National Convening Against Anti-AAPI Hate (AGA, Video)
  • March 19, 2021 – Addressing the Rise in Anti-Asian Hate with Attorneys General Herring, Tong, and Racine (Video)
  • September 25, 2020 – Taking a Stand Against Bullying, Harassment, and Hate with Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC and Hollaback (Video)

ACTION: Empowering District Youth and Youth Educators to Counter Hate

  • April 1, 2021 – Empowering Youth and Youth Educators to Counter Hate (OAG, Video)
  • November 9, 2020 – Artists v. Hate Program Launch (OAG, Video)
  • July 31, 2020 – OAG’s High School Advisory Take 30 Takeover on Combating Hate (Video)

Action: Addressing the Rise of Hate and Disinformation Online

  • November 29, 2021 – Algorithmic Amplification of Online Hate, Extremism and Misinformation (NAAG, Video)
  • April 8, 2021 – Hate and the Internet: Addressing Online Hate and Section 230 (AGA, Video)

Press & Thought Leadership on Hate:

  • January 27, 2022 – Blog: My Year-Long Trial Against Hate (Text)
  • December 15, 2021 - Op-Ed: We sued the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers to prevent another Jan. 6 (The Washington Post)
  • October 1, 2021 – Press Release: Hosting the 2021 NAAG Presidential Summit (Text)
  • September 30, 2021 – Press Release: AG Racine Hosts National Summit on Taking the Politics Out of Hate to Unite Attorneys General to Address Hate Incidents & Seek Solutions (Text)
  • September 17th, 2021 – Press Release: Staying Safe This Weekend & Combating Hate (Text)
  • September 11, 2021 – Op-Ed: “The Threat we Face is Unbridled Hate” 9/11 Anniversary (Link)
  • April 29, 2021 – Article: Antisemitic incidents historically high in DMV despite slight national decline (WUSA9)
  • April 6, 2021 – Podcast: Combatting Incel Violence (NAAG
  • March 26, 2021 – Press Release: Confronting Anti-Asian Hate (Text)
  • March 19, 2021 – Article: Three Attorneys General discuss rise of anti-Asian hate and violence (NBC12)
  • December 29, 2020 – Article: America has a hate problem. Facebook and Google are part of it, D.C.’s top attorney says (Politico)
  • December 23, 2020 – Article: The People vs. Hate (The Atlantic)
  • December 16, 2020 – Article: Racine Elected to Lead Attorneys General (Washington Informer)
  • November 27, 2020 – Article: After taking on Trump, D.C. attorney general turns focus to hate and extremism (Washington Post)
  • August 28, 2020 – Op-Ed: Welcome to the New Civil Rights Era (Washington Post)
  • June 1, 2020 – Op-Ed: Leaders Must Step Up to Fight Hate (The Hill)

Data set

<script type='text/javascript' src='https://tableau.dc.gov/javascripts/api/viz_v1.js'></script><div class='tableauPlaceholder' style='width: 850px; height: 1127px;'><object class='tableauViz' width='850' height='1127' style='display:none;'><param name='host_url' value='https%3A%2F%2Ftableau.dc.gov%2F' /> <param name='embed_code_version' value='3' /> <param name='site_root' value='&#47;t&#47;OAG' /><param name='name' value='CasesReviewed&#47;CasesReviewed' /><param name='tabs' value='no' /><param name='toolbar' value='yes' /><param name='showAppBanner' value='false' /></object></div>

Test Basic Page

Nulla porttitor accumsan tincidunt. Quisque velit nisi, pretium ut lacinia in, elementum id enim. Vestibulum ac diam sit amet quam vehicula elementum sed sit amet dui. Donec sollicitudin molestie malesuada. Proin eget tortor risus. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Donec velit neque, auctor sit amet aliquam vel, ullamcorper sit amet ligula. Pellentesque in ipsum id orci porta dapibus.

Domestic Violence Information

Domestic violence is one of the most dangerous and potentially fatal problems in our society. Domestic violence affects all communities, regardless of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, or age. As in other jurisdictions, instances of domestic violence are increasing within the District of Columbia.

Although men can be victims of domestic violence, an overwhelming number of victims are women. Domestic violence raises safety and economic concerns, particularly for women. However, there is help available to victims of domestic violence.

Frequently Asked Questions -- Domestic Violence

I am a victim of domestic violence.  How can I protect myself and my children?

Keeping yourself and your family safe is essential.

One safety tool is a civil protection order (“CPO”).  CPOs are granted by the court in an effort to ensure the safety of the petitioner (victim) from the respondent (offender). CPOs essentially order the respondent to stop abusing or threatening to abuse the victim and to stay away from that person.

There are two types of CPOs: 1) temporary civil protection orders and 2) final civil protection orders. Temporary CPOs are effective for no more than 14 days, whereas final CPOs are effective for no more than 1 year unless extended for good cause.

Why should I get a civil protection order?

Among other things, CPOs can grant any or all of the following forms of relief:

  • Award either party temporary custody of the minor children.
  • Award either party visitation with the minor children.
  • Award child support for 1 year based upon the Child Support Guidelines.
  • Award monetary relief to the petitioner (e.g., rent or mortgage payments, reimbursement for property damage, payment of medical bills, etc.).

How can I obtain a civil protection order?

A person can file for a CPO by completing a petition for civil protection and returning it to the DC Superior Court Domestic Violence Clerk’s Office.

Another option is to visit the Domestic Violence Intake Center (“DVIC”) in the DC Superior Court to speak with an intake specialist. The DVIC intake specialist will gather information to complete a petition for civil protection and then will submit this information to the DC Office of the Attorney General, Domestic Violence Section. An Assistant Attorney General will be assigned to the case and will appear with the victim at the CPO hearing.

A domestic violence victim also may retain private counsel, at their own expense, for representation in this matter.

How do I get child support when I file for a civil protection order?

CSSD has a case management specialist who works with the DVIC to assist people who want a CPO and child support. This CSSD staff member works with the parent to gather the information necessary to begin a parentage establishment and/or child support case in DC Superior Court.

Is it necessary to bring a parentage case even if the child(ren)'s other parent is known?

In order to establish an order for child support, parentage must be established first. This is necessary because only the people with a legal duty to provide for the child(ren) are responsible for child support. Click here for more information about parentage establishment.

How does the court calculate child support?

The court uses the Child Support Guidelines (“Guidelines”) in order to calculate support (financial and medical). The Guidelines take into account both parents’ incomes. Income can be proven in a variety of ways, including with pay stubs, tax returns, and W-2 forms.

How long does child support last if it is awarded in a CPO?

CPOs last for up to 1 year.  If the court awards child support in the CPO, the support obligation will expire when the CPO expires. Therefore, child support awarded in the CPO lasts for no longer than 1 year, and it will be important for the child's custodian to seek support for the period after the CPO ends, if desired.

If I receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (“TANF”), do I have to pursue child support even if I have a CPO?

TANF recipients are required to cooperate with CSSD in the establishment of parentage and in the establishment and enforcement of child support. However, in domestic violence cases, a “good cause” exception may apply. The law does not require a domestic violence victim to cooperate with the child support agency to pursue support if there is a safety risk. 

Note that the good cause exception is not automatic; approval is necessary. In these instances, it is best to speak with the assigned CSSD case management specialist about seeking a good cause exception so that TANF benefits are not suspended for failure to cooperate with child support efforts.

For More Information Contact:

The Domestic Violence Intake Center
             DC Superior Court
             500 Indiana Avenue, NW
             Room 4550
             Washington, DC 20001
             (202) 879-0152

Southeast Satellite Center
             1328 Southern Avenue, SE 
             Room 311
             Washington, DC 20032
             (202) 561-3000

$150 Pass-Through

When a parent makes payments toward current child support in a Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) case, DC law allows up to $150 of the payments each month to “pass through” directly to the custodial parent (CP).

Purpose of the $150 Pass-Through

  • To grant access to additional funds to children receiving TANF benefits
  • To encourage parents to pay their monthly child support obligation on a consistent basis
  • To encourage parents ordered to pay support to have an ongoing relationship with their children
  • To aid the District’s neediest children from living below the poverty line
  • To work in the best interest of the children and families of the District of Columbia

Frequently Asked Questions -- $150 Pass-Through

​​​​​​​How does the pass-through work?

The District of Columbia will provide additional income to CSSD customers who receive TANF benefits.  The law allows up to $150 of monthly child support payments for current support to be distributed directly to the custodial parent (CP).  This pass-through payment is provided to the CP in addition to the TANF benefits.

Who may receive the pass-through amount?

The pass-through amount applies to any CSSD customer who receives TANF benefits, who has a child support order in place for current support, and who receives a current support payment during the month.

How does the pass-through payment benefit a family?

The pass-through payment offers up to $150 in additional income to provide for the needs of the family.

Does the family receive the entire $150 as additional income?

The family will only receive the entire $150 if both of the following occur:

  • The current monthly child support obligation amount is $150 or more.
  • The parent ordered to pay support makes payments toward current support during the month of at least $150.

What time of the month will pass-through payments be received?

It is not possible to predict the exact timing of payments reaching families.  However, CSSD disburses pass-through amounts to families once payments are made by the parent.

Does a family receive a pass-through payment if the other parent does not pay?

A family will only receive pass-through money if the parent who is ordered to pay support makes a payment toward the current-support obligation during the month.

Will a family receive the same pass-through amount each month?

The pass-through amount may be different each month.  The pass-through payment amount is based on both the current monthly child support obligation amount and the amount the parent owing support actually pays during the month.

Example 1: The monthly child support order is $100.  

  • Month 1: Obligor pays $100.  The family receives $100 as a pass-through amount.
  • Month 2: Obligor pays $75. The family receives $75 as a pass-through amount.

Example 2: The monthly child support order if $200.

  • Month 1: Obligor pays $200.  The family receives $150 as a pass-through amount.
  • Month 2: Obligor pays $75. The family receives $75 as a pass-through amount.
  • Month 3: Obligor pays $0.  The family does not receive a pass-through amount.

Legal Advice Memos for the Office of the Attorney General

This table lists a selection of legal advice memos issued by this Office’s Legal Counsel Division. These informal memos are based on established law and practice and are intended as guidance for interested parties and members of the public. They generally are signed by the Deputy Attorney General for the Legal Counsel Division and are separate from the formal Opinions of the Attorney General, which can be found here.

Date

Subject

Question(s)

Conclusion

1/18/2022

Use of Appropriations for COVID-19 Rapid Testing Kits

May the Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) use appropriated funds to purchase COVID-19 rapid test kits to test OAG employees and visitors to OAG facilities?

Appropriated funds may be used to purchase rapid test kits for certain uses when the prevalence of COVID-19 requires such testing for OAG to maintain the health and safety of employees and others present on OAG premises.

8/27/2021

OAG Responsibility to Represent the D.C. Auditor

Is the Office of the Attorney General responsible for representing the Office of the District of Columbia Auditor in suits brought by entities outside the District government?

Yes, because the Office of the District of Columbia Auditor is a non-sui juris body that lacks express authority to represent itself.

5/8/2020

Mayoral Authority to Reduce the Budget of an Independent Agency

May the Mayor reduce funds appropriated to the Sentencing Commission during a fiscal year?

Yes, the Mayor may adopt this budgetary change under section 453 of the Home Rule Act, but only with Council approval.

2/14/2019

Legal Status of “Nudge” or “Skill” Video Gaming Machines

Would certain types of video gaming machines, referred to as “nudge” or “skill” games, be considered gambling devices in the District?

While the parameters of such video gaming machines are highly variable, there is a significant likelihood that they are games of chance, and therefore gambling devices, under D.C. Official Code § 22-1104, and a strong likelihood that they are gambling devices under the Johnson Act. In order not to be considered gambling devices in the District, a game should be winnable in every iteration of the game, and a perfectly skilled player should at a minimum be able to regularly win money at the game.

7/17/2018

Authority to Enforce the Financial Exploitation of Vulnerable Adults and the Elderly Amendment Act of 2016

Does the Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”), rather than the United States Attorney, have the authority to pursue civil penalties and injunctive relief, and to issue subpoenas under the Financial Exploitation of Vulnerable Adults and the Elderly Amendment Act of 2016?

OAG may exercise all three of these powers.

6/15/2017

Penalty Structure for Riot Offenses

Is the Riot Act, which appears to provide that someone who incites a riot that results in serious bodily harm or property damage above $5,000 may be charged with a felony rioting offense, while someone who willfully engages in the riot but does not incite it may be charged only with a rioting misdemeanor, ambiguous and is a legislative fix required?

The Riot Act’s penalty provisions are unambiguous. In the context of a riot causing significant property damage or serious bodily harm, the statute imposes a higher penalty on those who incited the riot than on those who participated in it. The legislative history indicates that this was an intentional choice because those who take part in a riot can often be charged with other offenses.

11/10/2016

OAG’s Common-Law Authority to Bring Actions

What is the scope of Office of the Attorney General’s (“OAG”) authority to bring claims that no statute specifically authorizes OAG to bring or forecloses it from bringing?

The broad authority vested with the Attorney General empowers OAG to bring actions in the public interest to the extent consistent with applicable statutes, in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of District residents.

9/21/2016

OAG Responsibility to Advise ANCs

What are the Office of the Attorney General’s (“OAG”) statutory obligations to offer legal advice to Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (“ANCs”)?

OAG’s statutory obligation is to advise ANCs and their Commissioners about statutes and issues that relate to the functions and operations of ANCs.

4/27/2016

Awards to Employees for Meeting Performance Goals

May the Child Support Services Division (“CSSD”) award gift cards or t-shirts to all employees as awards for meeting performance goals for the past five years?

CSSD may use appropriated funds to purchase and give away either $50 gift cards or T-shirts if it can meet the criteria for group incentive awards stated in 6 DCMR § 1906.

1/20/2016

Mayoral Authority to Pardon

Does the Mayor have legal authority to pardon offenses against the District of Columbia?

The Mayor does not have such authority except with respect to a narrow set of minor offenses.

11/6/2015

Applying Pay-to-Play Restrictions to PACs

Would it be constitutional to make contributors to political action committees in the District ineligible for District contracts valued at $100,000 or more?

This would be constitutional, as long as there is an exception for contributions to a PAC account that is not used to make campaign contributions.

8/10/2015

Applicability of the Sunshine Act to ANCs

Does section 742 of the Home Rule Act apply to Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (“ANCs”), and if so, is an audio recording of an ANC meeting a sufficient substitute for a written transcript?

The answer to both questions is yes. Section 742 applies to ANCs on its own terms. In addition, ANCs may keep either written or audio transcriptions of their meetings.

6/16/2015

Term Limits for Administrative Law Judges

Can newly legislated term limits be imposed on Administrative Law Judges (“ALJs”) who were appointed before new term limits were enacted?

ALJs appointed prior to the enactment of term limit changes are likely entitled to serve the entirety of the six-year term to which they were appointed. The ALJ Term Limit Act does not contain a specific retroactive application, and such laws are not presumed to apply retroactively.

5/22/2015

Whether OAG May Use Appropriated Funds to Purchase and Distribute OAG T-Shirts

May the Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) use appropriated funds to: (1) purchase t-shirts or polo shirts with the OAG logo for Community Outreach staff to wear at public events, and (2) distribute these shirts to the general public?

(1) Yes. A reasonable argument can be made that purchasing shirts for this purpose satisfies the “necessary expense” doctrine. (2) No. Appropriated funds may not be used for personal gifts for employees or the general public without specific statutory authorization.

4/13/2015

Applicability of the Federal Privacy Act to the District

Does the federal Privacy Act of 1974 apply to the District government?

Generally, it does not, but it affects the District’s participation in certain federal programs.

3/6/2014

Applicability of D.C. Official Code § 21-120 to Pre-Suit Settlements

Does D.C. Official Code § 21-120 require court approval of prelitigation settlements with minors?

No, the statute does not require court approval of prelitigation settlements with minors.

2/11/2014

Jurisdiction of the Board of Ethics and Government Accountability over Office of Administrative Hearings employees

Does the Board of Ethics and Government Accountability (“BEGA”) have jurisdiction over allegations that Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) Employees violated the District’s Conflict of Interest Statute or its Ethics Rules?

Yes, BEGA has jurisdiction over OAH employees. BEGA is authorized to enforce a Code of Conduct, which includes provisions in the District’s Code and regulations that apply to all District employees, including those who work for OAH.

1/29/2014

Circumstances Under Which Public Funds May Be Used to Purchase Food for Government Employees

Under what circumstances may public funds be used to provide food for government employees?

Appropriated funds may not be used to provide food to government employees without specific statutory authorization. Donated funds may be used for this purpose under certain circumstances.

6/14/2013

BEGA Obligations When Questioning Fraternal Order of Police Bargaining Unit Members

Is the Board of Ethics and Government Accountability (“BEGA”) required to extend special privileges when it questions members of the Fraternal Order of Police (“FOP”) bargaining unit?

No.  BEGA’s activities do not constitute a change in working conditions triggering any obligation to bargain; BEGA is not required to provide the same protection to bargaining unit members that the collective bargaining agreement requires the Metropolitan Police Department to provide; the Weingarten right to representation does not apply when BEGA questions a bargaining unit member in connection with its enforcement activities; and the FOP’s other requests are contrary to the Government Ethics Act and implementing regulations.

 

Opinions of the Attorney General

Present-2009

Date
Subject
Question(s)
Conclusion
5/16/2023 Validity of the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022, D.C. Law 24-345, Following Expiration of 60-Day Congressional Review Period. How are days counted for purposes of the congressional review period for acts of the Council? And what would be the legal effect on the validity of the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 (‘the Act’) if the Senate were to disapprove the Act after the expiration of the congressional review period? The Home Rule Act unambiguously states that the Congressional review period begins when legislation is ‘transmitted by the Chairman to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate.’ The date that a House of Congress records the transmission in the Congressional Register is irrelevant to the congressional review period under the Home Rule Act. Here, with the 60-day review period for the Act having lapsed without Senate disapproval, there would be no legal or practical significance under the Home Rule Act were the Senate now to pass a joint resolution disapproving of the Act.

6/19/2017

Washington Metrorail Safety Commission Interstate Compact

Do differences in the enabling statutes of the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland require the District to take additional legislative action before the Mayor may enter the Washington Metrorail Safety Commission Interstate Compact (MSC) with Maryland and Virginia?

No. There is no requirement that the enabling statutes of DC, Maryland and Virginia be identical. The differences between the three enabling acts are non-substantial and not requiring of a technical amendment act by the Council. The Mayor has sufficient current authority to enter the MSC on behalf of the District.

4/8/2014

Budget Autonomy

Is the Local Budget Autonomy Act of 2012 legally valid?

No, the Local Budget Autonomy Act of 2012 is not legally valid, because the Council exceeded its authority enacting it and because it violates federal law. The law exceeds Council authority because it changes the functions of the United States in the formation of the District’s budget and is not restricted in its application exclusively to the District.

2/8/2011

DC CFO/DC Housing Authority

Does the District of Columbia Chief Financial Officer (CFO) have the authority to supervise and to control the financial functions and financial personnel of the District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA)?

Yes, even though the DCHA was established as an independent agency of the District government, and receives funding from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, the District CFO has the authority to control the financial functions and personnel of the DCHA. The District CFO is responsible for supervising all public funds controlled by any department or agency of the District government, including independent ones.    

2008-1999

Date

Subject

Question(s)

Conclusion

4/22/2008

FY 2008 Supplemental Appropriations

May the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia (DC CFO) lawfully release $191.345 million dollars under the Fiscal Year 2008 Supplemental Appropriations Temporary Act of 2008 (“2008 Temporary Act”)?

Yes. The 2008 Temporary Act authorized the release, obligation, and expenditure of the money in question so long as the Mayor had submitted a request to the Council for three specific reprogrammings to the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS), the Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization (“OPEFM”), and the Office of the State Superintendent of Education. At the time this opinion was issued, the Mayor had complied with this requirement by submitting the three reprogramming requests; therefore the DC CFO had sufficient authority to lawfully release the funds in question.

12/8/2006

National Capital Revitalization Corporation

1) Is the NCRC part of the government of the District of Columbia (the “District”)?

2) Is the NCRC subject to either the federal or District Anti-Deficiency Acts?

3) Is the NCRC statutorily authorized to borrow money from private commercial banks secured by claims on property it owns? Is it prohibited from exercising this authorization by either of the Anti-Deficiency Acts?

4) Assuming the NCRC may borrow money from private commercial banks, what authority does it have to establish special revolving funds?

1) Yes, the NCRC is part of the District government as an independent instrumentality created by Council statute.

2) The NCRC is subject to both the District and the federal Anti-Deficiency Acts.

3/4) The NCRC does not have the authority to incur debt on its own behalf and may only borrow money with a specific authorization from the Council.

5/23/2005

Constitutionality of Youth Protection from Video Games Act

Is the Youth Protection from Obscene Video Games Act of 2005 (Bill 16-215) a constitutional restriction on free speech?

No, it is unlikely that Bill 16-215 could survive a constitutional challenge on free speech grounds, as its use of the ESRB video game content rating system is an overly broad standard and not narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest. A narrower limit on the sale of obscene material could possibly survive, but not the current bill before the Council. It is likely not permissible to ban a specific medium of obscene material rather than depictions of the material itself.

8/13/2002

Abuse and Neglect Cases

May District government employees or officials, other than attorneys of the Office of the Corporation Counsel (OCC), make the final decision regarding the filing and dismissing of petitions in abuse and neglect cases under D.C. Official Code sections 16-2301 et seq.?

District employees and officials other than OCC attorneys may make the final filing or dismissal decision in abuse and neglect cases where the decision is based on grounds other than sufficiency of the evidence or for reasons arising from not purely legal issues. However, where the final filing or dismissal decision for an abuse and neglect petition is made based on a good faith belief regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, then the authority to make this decision resides solely with the Corporation Counsel.

8/31/1999

Collective Bargaining Agreement, DC Nurses Association

Did the Health and hospitals Public Benefit Corporation Act of 1996 transfer an arbitrator’s award under the Collective Bargaining Agreement from the D.C. General Hospital to the District of Columbia Health and Hospitals Public Benefit Corporation (PBC)?

Yes, the arbitration award transferred to the PBC because the statute creating the PBC required it to assume all the obligations of the General Hospital, including the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and awards issued in connection with it.

8/13/1999

DC Board of Education, Removal of a Sitting President

Does the D.C. Board of Education have authority to remove a sitting president? If so, what procedures must it follow to effect the removal?

The Board of Education has no explicit authority to remove a president except “for cause” as provided for in Robert’s Rules of Order, which govern the Board’s proceedings. Per these rules, a sitting president may only be removed “for cause,” with reasonable advance notice of the charges and a formal trial on such charges.

6/21/1999

Department of Health Programs – License to Practice Medicine

Which employees of the District Department of Health (DOH) are required to hold a license to practice medicine under the terms of the Health Occupations Act?

 

Only those employees of the DOH actually engaged in the practice of medicine as part of their employment by the DOH are required to hold a license to practice medicine. The “practice of medicine” is defined by the Health Occupation Act as “treating physical and mental diseases, disorders, and conditions” of individual patients. Employees of the DOH, including executives, who are not actually practicing medicine, do not require such a license.

3/11/1999

1720 H St., Liquor License

Does the term “Establishment” as used in the Alcoholic Beverage and Control Act and Rules Reform Amendment Act of 1994 (“1994 Act”) refer to the location of a specific business, or to the business generally wherever it is located?

 

Although the wording of the 1994 Act is ambiguous, it is likely that “Establishment” refers only the actual location of the business at a particular time. This conclusion is supported by prior jurisprudence regarding the 1994 Act, the method in which establishments are defined in the ABC Act and Regulations, and the rule of statutory construction that a grandfather clause is to be narrowly, not broadly, construed. Therefore, the 1720 Club, which held a grandfathered liquor license, could not transfer this license to a new physical location

1998-1989

Date

Subject

Question(s)

Conclusion

12/7/1998

Inspector General/DC Housing Authority

Does the Inspector General have the authority to require the production of documents from the District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA) and to compel the testimony of DCHA employees?

Yes, the Inspector General has these powers by virtue of Section 208 of the District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985, and the DCHA is not exempt from the Inspector General’s oversight despite its status as an independent agency.

7/8/1998

Contracts and Leases

Does the D.C. Council have the power to review and approve proposed leases involving expenditures in excess of $1 million during a 12-month period?

Yes. Even though contracting is traditionally a mayoral function not subject to Council review, the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995 (FRMAA) amended the District charter and gave the Council the authority to review large leases with expenditures exceeding $1 million during a 12-month period.

11/6/1997

National Capital Revitalization and Government Self Improvement Act/D.C. Courts

After the passage of the National Capital Revitalization and Government Self Improvement Act of 1997 (“The Revitalization Act”), are the D.C. Courts (including judges, officials, and employees) the judicial branch of the District of Columbia Government for the purpose of receiving legal representation by the Office of Corporation Counsel, and for the purpose of payments from the D.C. Settlement and Judgement Fund?

The answer to both of these questions is yes – the Revitalization Act did not change the status of the D.C. Courts as the judicial branch of the D.C. Government. The Office of Corporation Counsel may continue to provide legal defense services to judges, officials, and employees of the D.C. Courts who are sued in connection with carrying out their duties, and the judgements and settlements of such cases may still be paid out of the D.C. Settlement and Judgement Fund.

5/10/1996

Council Review, Independent Agency Contracts, $1 Million

Is Council review required for proposed contracts of independent agencies in excess of one million dollars during a 12-month period?

Yes, it was the intention of Congress in passing the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act of 1973 that the Council review all proposed contracts, including those for executive independent agencies, which exceed one million dollars over a 12-month period.

3/15/1995

DC Licenses, Special Police Officers, Federal Property

May the District grant licenses as special police officers to the employees of a private company that guards Federal property?

 

Yes, the District may grant licenses as special police officers to agents of private companies contracted to guard federal property, so long as the private company chooses to apply for those licenses. The language “corporation or person” in the statute governing these licenses does not apply to the federal government but does extend to private security companies engaged by the government. This opinion overrode an opinion of the Office of the Corporation Counsel finding the opposite, which was published on July 2, 1948.

10/28/1994

Preconstruction Costs – D.C. Convention Center, Sports Arena

May the District use appropriations from the Washington Convention Center Fund, the Starplex Fund, and the Rainy Day Fund to pay for feasibility studies on constructing a new convention center and sports arena?

Yes, the FY 1995 Appropriations Act, the statutes which established these specific funds, and the principles of appropriations law all support paying for such studies, as they are a necessary expense of constructing such facilities.

5/6/1993

Special Police Officers – Multiple Residential, Commercial Properties

1) Does D.C. Code Section 4-114 allow armed or unarmed Special Police Officers to perform “roving patrols” of residential and commercial properties?

2) Does 17 DCMR Chapter 21 (“Security Officers and Security Agencies”) permit security officers to perform “roving patrols” of residential and commercial properties?

Yes, armed or unarmed Special Police Officers and security officers may carry out their responsibilities at multiple separate and separately owned properties, and may travel over public space to do so.

1/27/1993

DC Controller – Salary Overpayments, Judges

May the D.C. Controller recoup retirement salary overpayments made to retired judges of the Superior Court?

 

Where the salary for a retired judge has been calculated incorrectly, resulting in an overpayment, the District may bring an action to recoup the overpayment, but should consider whether such an action is appropriate before bringing one. No statute of limitations applies to recovery of overpayments, and the recipient of an overpayment may not plead equitable estoppel as a defense against such an action.

5/31/1990

Housing Regulations Violation Appeals

Does 14 DCMR Section 107.1 permit a person who has received a citation for violating housing regulations to appeal directly to the Board of Appeals and Review?

No, appeals of such citations are governed by the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs Civil Infractions Act of 1985, which specifies the procedure for such appeals.

2/8/1989

DC Council, Mayoral Term Limits

Does the D.C. Council have the authority to implement Mayoral term limits through ordinary legislation?

 

No, the D.C. Council must amend the District’s Charter in order to implement term limits. Where a constitution (such as the District Charter) provides explicit conditions for holding an office, those conditions are to be considered exclusive. The District Charter, which does not feature term limits, is analogous to a state constitution and so must be amended accordingly

1988-1982

Date

Subject

Question(s)

Conclusion

9/9/1988

DC DCRA, Licensing Adams-Morgan Day

Must the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) obtain the written approval of 90% of the resident housekeepers and occupants of business establishments in a neighborhood before issuing a license to a public event, such as a carnival?

The 90% consent requirement applies only to licenses for events to be held on private property. An event which is conducted only on public streets and sidewalks has no community consent requirement. However, if such an event requires the closing of public streets, then the DCRA must obtain the consent of 51% of all households and businesses abutting the street or streets to be closed.

5/4/1988

Solicitation of Funds Requirements

What are the requirements for the solicitation of funds in the District of Columbia?

In order to solicit funds in the District, one must register as a domestic or foreign nonprofit corporation with the Superintendent of Corporations of the District of Columbia, and complete an application to conduct charitable solicitations and verify 501(c)(3) status with the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs.

12/25/1987

DC DCRA, Infractions and Fines

May the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) issue notice and impose fines against District government agencies and their contractors under the authority of the Civil Infractions Act?

No, the DCRA does not have this power. One agency of government does not have the authority to compel another, absent some express statutory authority to do so.

9/16/1987

More Than One Advisory Neighborhood Commission “Affected”

Can more than one Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) be “affected” by a District government action for the purposes of the notice requirement of D.C. Code Section 1-261(b) (1987)?

 

Yes, a District government action can affect more than one ANC. Any ANC which demonstrates that it is affected by an action has standing to submit written recommendations on the proposed agency action. An ANC is affected when a proposed agency action would have “substantial and predictable effect” on any person residing or doing business within the boundaries of the ANC in question.

4/2/1987

Advance Payments of Interests, Real Property Wet Settlement Act

Does the Real Property Wet Settlement Act of 1986 (D.C. Code Section 45-2801 et seq.) (effective February 24, 1987) (“The Act”) prevent the collection of “odd-days’” interest once loan funds have been disbursed?

No, the Act does not prohibit a lender from charging or receiving “odd-days’” interest once the lender has executed the loan documents with the borrower and delivered the loan funds to a settlement agent. “Odd-Days” interest is interest that accrues in between the closing of the borrowing agreement and the first full month of the loan term and is usually collected by the lender (in advance) at closing.

2/24/1986

How District Employees Must Handle Funds

When does a Mayor’s Order constitute rulemaking?

A Mayor’s Order generally constitutes rulemaking (and is thus subject to administrative procedure) when it directly applies to any segment of the public and bestows or deny rights, benefits, services, licenses, or sanctions. However, an Order which is wholly internal to the District government and acts only as a directive to the Mayor’s subordinates is not considered rulemaking.

5/25/1985

Real Property Exemption Status, World Bank

Is the World Bank entitled to a real property tax exemption under the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. Section 288 (1979)) (IOIA)? If so, when does the exemption commence?

The World Bank is entitled to a real property tax exemption because it was designated by executive order of the President as an international organization entitled to certain privileges and immunities under the IOIA. The exemption commenced on the date the World Bank acquired property that would otherwise be subject to the real property tax.

4/16/1985

DC Auditor, Public Service Commission

What authority does the District of Columbia Auditor have to review the activities of the Public Service Commission (“the Commission”)?

The Auditor has the authority to review the “accounts and operations” of the government of the District, including the Commission, and the authority to examine any records or papers of the Commission “necessary to facilitate the audit.” However, the Auditor does not have the authority to review or request disclosure of the actual deliberations by which the Commission comes to different legal conclusions and resolves specific issues.

12/20/1984

No Fault Law, On-Duty Police and Firefighters

Are on-duty firefighters and police officers injured while operating District of Columbia vehicles eligible for compensation under the Compulsory/No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act (No-Fault Law)?

No, firefighters and police officers injured while operating District of Columbia vehicles are not eligible for compensation under the No-Fault Law. Work-related injuries to District employees are covered by the District of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act (CMPA), and the CMPA was intended to be the exclusive remedy for such injuries.

5/25/1984

DC Claim, Comptroller of the Currency

Do laws permitting the District to claim abandoned property in safety deposit boxes apply to abandoned property in the possession of the Comptroller of the Currency?

Yes. The District is a “state” for the purposes of laws that allow “states” to claim abandoned property held in the safety deposit boxes of defunct banks. The District may bring claims upon unclaimed or abandoned property under the rules of such statutes, even if the abandoned property is in the possession of the Comptroller of the Currency. No federal laws are pre-empted or violated by this so long as the claim is in accordance with the other provisions of the relevant statute.

12/23/1983

DC Auditor, DC Retirement Board

Does the District of Columbia Auditor have the authority to audit the District of Columbia Retirement Board under the terms of the District of Columbia Retirement Reform Act of 1979 (DCRRA)?

Yes, the District of Columbia Auditor has the authority under section 47-117 of the D.C. Code to conduct audits of accounts and operations of the Retirement Board, subject to the exclusive authority and discretion of that board to manage and control the retirement funds established by the 1979 Retirement Reform Act.

10/4/1983

Commission on Human Rights/Office of Human Rights – Private Sector Complaints

Does the Commission on Human Rights (“The Commission”) have the authority to review no-probable-cause determinations made by the Office of Human Rights (“The Office”), in cases involving private sector complaints of discrimination?

No, the Commission does not have the authority to review such determinations by the Office. Such authority was removed by the District’s 1973 Human Rights Law.

3/3/1983

Tickets – Non-Moving Violations

 

What authority do Department of Transportation (DDOT) enforcement personnel have to issue tickets?

 

DDOT personnel are empowered to issue tickets solely for parking (non-moving) violations as defined by the District of Columbia Traffic Adjudication Act of 1978. Parking infractions include all laws, rules, or regulations regulating the parking, stopping, or standing of a vehicle. DDOT may only issue tickets when a vehicle is on a public highway, stationary, and unoccupied.

2/3/1983

No-Fault Vehicle Insurance – Diplomats, DC, WMATA, US

 

Does the insurance requirement of the Compulsory/No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act of 1982 (D.C. Law 4-155, effective September 18, 1982) (“the Act”) apply to vehicles owned by diplomats, the District of Columbia, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), or by the United States?

Yes, the insurance requirement of the Act applies to all four classes of vehicles listed, and so the Department of Transportation may require a certificate of insurance as a prerequisite for the registration of any such vehicles. However, the Department of Transportation may not require more of WMATA or the United States than the statement that they are self-insured for the payment of claims under applicable laws.

10/7/1982

Attorneys’ Fees, Compensatory Damages – Office of Human Rights

Does the Office of Human Rights have the authority to award attorneys’ fees or compensatory damages in cases brought by D.C. employees against the D.C. government?

No. By statute, the Mayor is empowered to determine the remedies in suits by employees against the District, and in Mayor’s Order 75-230, the Mayor identified possible remedies as hiring, reinstatement, or promotion without back pay, and did not include fees or compensatory damages. Under the principle that “to express one is to exclude the others,” the OHR is not empowered to grant attorneys’ fees or compensatory damages in actions brought by employees against the District.

8/30/1982

Unemployment Fund – Interest on Advances from Federal Account

 

May the Mayor obligate the District to pay interest on advances made to it from the Federal unemployment account in the Unemployment Trust Fund?

 

Yes, the Mayor is permitted under the District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Act to take advances from the Federal unemployment account in the Unemployment Trust Fund, and to repay these advances with interest, so long as the interest is not paid with amounts from the District Unemployment Fund

Modifying a Child Support Order

Modifying an Order

 

Every 3 years, any parent can ask the Child Support Services Division (CSSD) to schedule a review and adjustment conference.  At the conference, both parents are asked to provide current information regarding income, childcare expenses, medical insurance availability and expenses, other children in the home, and other child support orders. CSSD uses this information to calculate the possible amount of support to be paid according to the DC Child Support Guidelines. If this new amount is different from the old amount by 15% or more, a motion to modify the order can be filed.

Order Modification (Adjustment) Basics

Change of Circumstances

Substantial and Material Change

Any parent can request a review and adjustment conference, or independently file a motion in court to modify, if there has been a substantial and material change in the needs of the child(ren) or in the payment ability of the parent who was ordered to pay support. CSSD will proceed with a review, outside of the 3-year cycle, only if the requesting parent provides sufficient evidence of substantial and material change in circumstances.

Requesting a Modification of Medical Support

If a child support order does not include medical support, or if the medical needs of a child have changed since the order was entered, a parent can request a review and adjustment conference with CSSD to examine the request for a change in the order's medical support terms. Note that a parent may file an independent motion with the court to add or modify medical support.

The DC Child Support Guidelines

The DC Child Support Guidelines determine the ongoing support amount to be paid by the parent ordered to pay support. By law, information about the parents is used in the formula to calculate the support amount. That information includes, but is not limited to, the following:

  • The incomes of both parents
  • The custodial parent’s childcare expenses
  • Medical insurance expenses for the child(ren)
  • Any other child support obligations for the parent ordered to pay support
  • The number of biological or adopted children living in the household of the parent ordered to pay support

The Order Modification (Adjustment) Process

How to Schedule a Review and Adjustment Conference with CSSD

Contact the CSSD Enforcement Unit at (202) 442-9900, #4 or (202) 724-2316, Monday - Friday, 8:15am - 4:45pm.

Preparing for the Review and Adjustment Conference

Please provide copies of the following before the conference and bring any originals on the day of the conference:

  • Your most recent support order
  • Two current pay statements, if employed
  • Your most recent federal income tax forms and/or W-2 statements
  • Proof of childcare expenses for the child(ren) in the support order
  • Proof of medical insurance coverage and cost for the child(ren) in the support order
  • Proof of any other child support order(s) and proof of payment on the order(s)
  • Proof of any other biological or adopted child(ren) in the home of the person ordered to pay support
  • Any other information that shows there has been a substantial and material change in the needs of the child(ren) or in the payment ability of the parent ordered to pay support

The Review and Adjustment Conference

During the review and adjustment conference, CSSD will estimate the current amount of support owed under the DC Child Support Guidelines. 

If both parents agree to this amount or to another amount, they can sign a consent order that sets a new support amount and start date. However, note that the new support amount will not go into effect until approved by the court.  After the review and adjustment conference, CSSD will file the consent support order with the DC Superior Court.  Once the judge signs it, it becomes effective.

A Motion to Modify Support

When to file a motion to modify: If the parents do not agree to the new guideline support amount after the review and adjustment conference, then a motion to modify must be filed with the court before a support change can be made. CSSD may file the motion to modify, if a substantial and material change in circumstances is shown. However, a parent may independently file a motion for modification, if desired.

How to file a motion to modify: A parent may contact the CSSD Enforcement Unit at (202) 442-9700, #4 or (202) 724-2316 to speak with the case management specialist assigned to the case. A parent also may contact the DC Superior Court Self-Help Center at (202) 879-0096 for additional information.

The modification hearing: The DC Superior Court schedules all court hearings. Generally, a hearing will be scheduled for a time within 45 days following the filing of the motion; however, hearing times vary.

The change in ongoing support: A support order is not changed until a judge signs the order granting the modification. This usually happens after the judge reviews the consent order agreed to by the parents or after a hearing on the motion to modify if the parents cannot agree. It is important to note that some consent orders or motions to modify are not granted, even if CSSD has calculated a possible new guideline amount at the review and adjustment conference. The decision to grant or deny a request for modification is at the discretion of the judge.

Modification (Adjustment) for Incarcerated Parents or Returning Citizens

Modification at the Sentencing Hearing

In 2005, the District of Columbia enacted a law entitled “Notice at Sentencing of Child Support Modification.” The law allows a parent, who has been ordered to pay support and who is being sentenced to 30 days or more for a criminal offense unrelated to child support, to seek a modification of that parent's child support order(s). The law also applies to a parent whose probation is being revoked and who is facing a sentence of 30 days or more.

The law does not automatically suspend support obligations when a noncustodial parent is sent to jail or prison; that parent must formally file a motion to modify the support order. The motion to modify must be filed at the time of sentencing or during imprisonment to affect ongoing support payments that come due while the parent is incarcerated. Also, if a modification is sought, it can only be granted for the period from the date of the motion's filing and forward. According to federal law, after being released from prison a parent may not ask the court to modify a child support order retroactively (that is, for an earlier period).

Also, a child support order may not be subject to modification if the parent is found to have the ability to pay support while incarcerated or if the parent is incarcerated for nonpayment of a child support order.

Post-Release Child Support

When a parent is released from jail or prison, that parent should contact CSSD immediately to provide a current address and updated financial information. If appropriate, CSSD will file a motion to reinstate child support. Depending on the paying parent's current financial circumstances, however, the order could be the same, higher, or lower. 

For additional information, visit: Incarcerated and Returning Parents.